US vs the world - hypothetical war

[Zardoz]

FAMINE, I know you don't think this but where do people get this idea? Does anyone actually watch American news? I hear more about what is wrong with America and how this war is a quagmire than I do about how great our army is...

Okay, maybe Famine used a paint roller where he should've used a smallish brush, but did you see any of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel's coverage of the invasion of Iraq? It was like watching an Al Franken satire or something. I'd sit there with my mouth open, trying to come to grips with what I was seeing and hearing. We use the word "surreal" far too loosely to describe strange things, but in this case, that's exactly what it was.

It seemed like I was watching a remake of the old movie "Network", where Fay Dunaway played a maniacal TV news programing executive who came up with insanely outlandish material. Fox has toned things down considerably now, but of course they still refuse to use the term "suicide bomber", don't they? They're still operating in a state of denial, and push the administration's agenda like they were getting a daily punch list from Dick Cheney.

But you're correct about most of the other networks. They aren't like Fox, thank the Lord...

However, imagining the media being used to brainwash people into going along with something crazy (like my mad Pat Robertson scenario) is not a stretch at all. In that regard, Famine is spot-on.

 

[Danoff]

Okay, maybe Famine used a paint roller where he should've used a smallish brush, but did you see any of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel's coverage of the invasion of Iraq? It was like watching an Al Franken satire or something. I'd sit there with my mouth open, trying to come to grips with what I was seeing and hearing. We use the word "surreal" far too loosely to describe strange things, but in this case, that's exactly what it was.

It seemed like I was watching a remake of the old movie "Network", where Fay Dunaway played a maniacal TV news programing executive who came up with insanely outlandish material. Fox has toned things down considerably now, but of course they still refuse to use the term "suicide bomber", don't they? They're still operating in a state of denial, and push the administration's agenda like they were getting a daily punch list from Dick Cheney.

But you're correct about most of the other networks. They aren't like Fox, thank the Lord...

However, imagining the media being used to brainwash people into going along with something crazy (like my mad Pat Robertson scenario) is not a stretch at all. In that regard, Famine is spot-on.

Famine was being sarcastic.

 

[FoolKiller]

Okay, maybe Famine used a paint roller where he should've used a smallish brush, but did you see any of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel's coverage of the invasion of Iraq? It was like watching an Al Franken satire or something. I'd sit there with my mouth open, trying to come to grips with what I was seeing and hearing. We use the word "surreal" far too loosely to describe strange things, but in this case, that's exactly what it was.

It seemed like I was watching a remake of the old movie "Network", where Fay Dunaway played a maniacal TV news programing executive who came up with insanely outlandish material. Fox has toned things down considerably now, but of course they still refuse to use the term "suicide bomber", don't they? They're still operating in a state of denial, and push the administration's agenda like they were getting a daily punch list from Dick Cheney.

You keep using Rupert Murdoch as your attacking point on Fox News. I don't know what your deal is with Rupert Murdoch but he is not in charge of Fox News. He has controlling interest and is president, CEO, and chairman of the board of News Corporation, which owns Fox News. The Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President of FOX News is Roger Ailes. He moved from NBC as head of CNBC and America's Talking (now MSNBC) when they would not allow him full creative control. Murdoch offered him full creative control in his contract because it was Ailes' only stipulation to start up a network that the entire world expected to fail.

So, if you want to hate someone for Fox News attack Roger Ailes, because you are currently missing your mark. However, his political history for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush(1) are most likely why he was hired.

But you're correct about most of the other networks. They aren't like Fox, thank the Lord...

When Murdoch bought Fox TV with plans to launch Fox News the FCC ruled that it was in the public interest. And that was with Clinton appointed commissioners.

EDIT: I would argue this more but once I get started we would have to create a whole new thread about what all the networks do wrong.

However, imagining the media being used to brainwash people into going along with something crazy (like my mad Pat Robertson scenario) is not a stretch at all. In that regard, Famine is spot-on.

Not in a world of free press and blogs. There will always be dissent in the media (aka "the watchdogs of the government"). This idea does work in Communist Dictatorships though.

 

[Zardoz]

...I don't know what your deal is with Rupert Murdoch...I would argue this more but once I get started we would have to create a whole new thread about what all the networks do wrong....

You're right about a whole new thread so I'll just post this link and shut up about him:

One view of Murdoch (that might be a tiny bit biased...)

 

[ledhed]

FAMINE, I know you don't think this but where do people get this idea? Does anyone actually watch American news? I hear more about what is wrong with America and how this war is a quagmire than I do about how great our army is.


Back on topic, Ledhed, assume that the world decided to team up on the US for some reason. I like the idea of an alternative energy source to oil is discovered by private investors in the US and thus not controlled by any government entity. These investors are forced to share their technology with other US companies but the US government cannot actually take control of it by force.

Local politics aside (this is already going to be long) the world economy becomes based around this new energy source and is thus controlled by what the majority of the world hates more than anything, private industry. The rest of the world with their more socialist views feel the American companies should share more freely, but the companies refuse and the American government backs them because these companies are doing what is natural in a capitalist economy.

Eventually the anti-American sentiment grows even larger because these new companies make the McWorld idea look small. The majority of the world decides that they want to have this technology be freely given (even though jealousy and greed of control for themselves is the true motivator) and the UN, and the EU (except England) vote for resolutions demanding that the technology be made freely available in the interest of global growth. The US essentially tells them to shove it because no one was giving out free oil so why should we give our stuff free.

This creates an even uglier political climate and increase the hatred towards the US. More and more resolutions pass and eventually the US leaves the UN (forced or willingly is inconsequential). Finally a resolution is passed threatening forceful action will be taken if denied again. The US responds by decreasing aid and withdrawing troops from international bases. This cycle continues until finally a resolution for war against the US is passed.

The UN and EU has been quietly building up their oil supplies expecting the US to eventually stop exporting the new energy source. Then the first shot is cast as an explosion rocks and disables a major American port, crippling their supply lines and ckilling hundreds. There is controversy for a couple of months until the origin of the attack is traced back to the responsible country. The UN cries scandal and calls for investigations and demands that America stands down until they can finish make their own determination, but the American people are angered at the unprovoked attack.

No longer hindered by its UN membership the US launches a counter attack. The UN and its member countries scream about an illegal and unprovoked attack as they have discovered that it was not who the US is accusing. The US demands evidence and to know who it is. The UN offers weak evidence as they had full knowledge of who it was. This does not satisfy the US and open war is declared.

At this point the UN countries and other allies of the attacking country come to their aid to defend against the US. By thsi point the anti-American sentiment around eth world is toop strong for anyone to join the US and they all declare war or dedicate resources against the US.



How does that scenario work for you? The assumption that the US would be the aggresor is truly the anti-American sentiment seeping through.

If the world ever attacked the US I feel bad for the world . The US wouldnt conquer and occupy ..no need to.. we would totally destroy every army and navy on Earth , with or without nukes ..your choice . Afterwords if you do not play nice ..maybe you lose a city or two ..again your choice . I cant imagine fighting 300 million united and pissed off Americans . That would make Ghengis Khan cringe . Think firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo ..think nukes over Hiroshima...think total war ..you are all doomed . Think London turned to ashes along with Paris , Moscow , Berlin etc. No way to prevent it ..even without nukes and American public opinion actually appluading it . You want nightmares think total war with the US . You cant stop a stealth bomber , you can only pray before you die .

 

[Diego440]

If the world ever attacked the US I feel bad for the world . The US wouldnt conquer and occupy ..no need to.. we would totally destroy every army and navy on Earth , with or without nukes ..your choice . Afterwords if you do not play nice ..maybe you lose a city or two ..again your choice . I cant imagine fighting 300 million united and pissed off Americans . That would make Ghengis Khan cringe . Think firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo ..think nukes over Hiroshima...think total war ..you are all doomed . Think London turned to ashes along with Paris , Moscow , Berlin etc. No way to prevent it ..even without nukes and American public opinion actually appluading it . You want nightmares think total war with the US . You cant stop a stealth bomber , you can only pray before you die .

Patriotism at its best.

Objectivism at its worst.

 

[Grand Prix]

If the world ever attacked the US I feel bad for the world . The US wouldnt conquer and occupy ..no need to.. we would totally destroy every army and navy on Earth , with or without nukes ..your choice . Afterwords if you do not play nice ..maybe you lose a city or two ..again your choice . I cant imagine fighting 300 million united and pissed off Americans . That would make Ghengis Khan cringe . Think firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo ..think nukes over Hiroshima...think total war ..you are all doomed . Think London turned to ashes along with Paris , Moscow , Berlin etc. No way to prevent it ..even without nukes and American public opinion actually appluading it . You want nightmares think total war with the US . You cant stop a stealth bomber , you can only pray before you die .

...And if other countries have more stealth bombers than the US, that we don't even know about?

 

[Swift]

Patriotism at its best.

Objectivism at its worst.

Yeah, but it's true.

...And if other countries have more stealth bombers than the US, that we don't even know about?

All modern nations have defenses that we don't know about. Including the US, so we could go in a circular discussion with that for over 100 pages(see the Creation vs Evolution thread for an example )

 

[Famine]

I should add that Stealth Bombers (and fighters) can be stopped, though not easily detectable by ground radar. It just takes a sufficiently advanced air force and, dare I say it, satellite-based air traffic control.


Or rain, in the case of the F-117A.

 

[Diego440]

Yeah, but it's true.

isn't that the actual topic of the thread?... I mean, we're all talking on one side how the US would lose and on the other side how the US would win... What ledhed says is that the US would support a war declaration on the rest of the world... is that what you say is true? Or that the US would win?

I'll sit on the fence on the first question this time, but I say again, the US would lose.

Or rain, in the case of the F-117A

Shame on you, Famine. It does not rain on US Stealth bombers...
(/sarcasm)

 

[Zardoz]

This line requires some editing to bring it into convergence with reality:

...I can't imagine 300 million united Americans...

 

[Famine]

Or low frequency/long wavelength radar, as used to track and down the F-117A lost in the Former Yugoslavia.

 

[Zardoz]

...but I say again, the US would lose...

...a no-nuke slugfest, because, as I've been saying, the USAF would not be able to bring its fighters into the conflict. Nobody has advanced a scenario for doing that. It would require the operation of air bases within the borders of hostile nations, and we just couldn't pull that off.

It would be the U.S. Navy's fighters and the USAF's long-range bombers against the armies and navies of the world. If a few of our carriers were sunk, we'd have to call it off and go home.

 

[Grand Prix]

Yeah, but it's true.



All modern nations have defenses that we don't know about. Including the US, so we could go in a circular discussion with that for over 100 pages(see the Creation vs Evolution thread for an example )

I laugh at some of you guys' posts. Canada? Surrender easily? Mwahahahaha.

Iraqi insurgents blow themselves up to attack occupying forces. Imagine what millions of sneaky, deceitful, Canadians with rifles could do! Read up on the attack of Montreal in the American Revolution. A lot of Canadians are descendents of those evil, British snipers with muskets...

 

[Danoff]

...a no-nuke slugfest, because, as I've been saying, the USAF would not be able to bring its fighters into the conflict. Nobody has advanced a scenario for doing that. It would require the operation of air bases within the borders of hostile nations, and we just couldn't pull that off.

It would be the U.S. Navy's fighters and the USAF's long-range bombers against the armies and navies of the world. If a few of our carriers were sunk, we'd have to call it off and go home.

No way. I don't think it would have to be within hostile nations. It could be within occupied land. Especially occupied land unknown by the enemy (like I said, we're the ones with the extensive satellite survailance). Besides that, I don't see why we need to get the USAF aircraft engaged at all. All we're doing beyond hostile boarders is making strategic runs. The real defense will likely occur right near our boarders - in which case the USAF is going to be needed close to home.

We can use cruise missiles and other ordinance to take out strategic bridges, airfields, power plants, etc. We can use navy bombers and long range units launched from home and refueled over the atlantic/pacific.

 

[Swift]

isn't that the actual topic of the thread?... I mean, we're all talking on one side how the US would lose and on the other side how the US would win... What ledhed says is that the US would support a war declaration on the rest of the world... is that what you say is true? Or that the US would win?

I'll sit on the fence on the first question this time, but I say again, the US would lose.

Nope, sorry. As danoff has pointed out. We have the ordnance to pretty much take out all the major installations on the planet. Or at least the ones that could cause a threat. I just don't see how we would loose. We may not be able to conqueror the entire planet, but I think we can defend ourselves from the major nations of the world.

 

[Grand Prix]

Nope, sorry. As danoff has pointed out. We have the ordnance to pretty much take out all the major installations on the planet. Or at least the ones that could cause a threat. I just don't see how we would loose. We may not be able to conqueror the entire planet, but I think we can defend ourselves from the major nations of the world.

So you're saying that the US couldn't occupy the world, but it could defend itself?

Then it would be stalemate, and the war's end would be determined by attrition. It sounds like the mentalty of the USA would be to hide behind a modern "Maginot Line" of air defense...

 

[Danoff]

So you're saying that the US couldn't occupy the world, but it could defend itself?

Then it would be stalemate, and the war's end would be determined by attrition. It sounds like the mentalty of the USA would be to hide behind a modern "Maginot Line" of air defense...

That's what I've been saying all along. There is no way we could occupy. It would take more ground troops than we have people. But we could definitely defend our nation against an agressive world.

It wouldn't be a stalemate if the world objective were to take over the US, and the US objective was not to be taken over - we'd win.... and no we wouldn't get worn down over time.

Plus think about the huge economic damage due to the severing of all trade ties with the US. Sure we'd take a MASSIVE hit. But so would everyone else, especially those countries who's entire economy is built on the US (ehem Japan).

Honestly, I think the world would give up as soon as they realized it meant no more access to the C6 Z06.

 

[Grand Prix]

That's what I've been saying all along. There is no way we could occupy. It would take more ground troops than we have people. But we could definitely defend our nation against an agressive world.

It wouldn't be a stalemate if the world objective were to take over the US, and the US objective was not to be taken over - we'd win.... and no we wouldn't get worn down over time.

Plus think about the huge economic damage due to the severing of all trade ties with the US. Sure we'd take a MASSIVE hit. But so would everyone else, especially those countries who's entire economy is built on the US (ehem Japan).

Honestly, I think the world would give up as soon as they realized it meant no more access to the C6 Z06.

I'm sure Japan could persuade Russia and China to support them.
Assuming the USA acquires the resources of Canada and Mexico, this would make the playing field more even. But the only way to ensure victory in the resource battle would be to destroy the Allies' resources. I don't think the USA could do this. American corporations would never approve of it, for one.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sure Japan could persuade Russia and China to support them.
Assuming the USA acquires the resources of Canada and Mexico, this would make the playing field more even. But the only way to ensure victory in the resource battle would be to destroy the Allies' resources. I don't think the USA could do this. American corporations would never approve of it, for one.

We prevent corporations from doing business with enemies of the state all the time.

 

[Grand Prix]

We prevent corporations from doing business with enemies of the state all the time.

No, I was thinking more about the long term, the end of the war. If the USA were to win the war, but thought about destroying a bunch of oil fields, grain fields or coal mines, corporations wouldn't like the idea. They wouldn't be able to acquire resource assets after the war because the US Army already blew them up. You see what I'm saying?

 

[Zardoz]

Heck, we haven't even agreed on the scenario yet, other than the no-nuke bit. Would the U.S. be the aggressor or would it be defending itself?

If we attacked, we couldn't win. The carriers would be the key, everybody would know that, and the world would concentrate on sinking them.

If we were attacked, completely different story. We'd stop everything hundreds or even thousands of miles beyond our borders. Attacking forces would have to face thousands of Air Force, Navy, and Marine fighters. Nothing would get through. "Fortress America", indeed...

 

[Grand Prix]

Heck, we haven't even agreed on the scenario yet, other than the no-nuke bit. Would the U.S. be the aggressor or would it be defending itself?

If we attacked, we couldn't win. The carriers would be the key, everybody would know that, and the world would concentrate on sinking them.

If we were attacked, completely different story. We'd stop everything hundreds or even thousands of miles beyond our borders. Attacking forces would have to face thousands of Air Force, Navy, and Marine fighters. Nothing would get through. "Fortress America", indeed...

What about the "backdoor of Belgium"?

 

[a6m5]

I was reading a bit, and I saw people talking about the man power.

I think I said manpower. Manpower matters big time. During the WWII, some countries simply ran out of people to draft. I know that Japan and Germany were sending kids off to the battle. Also, manpower is needed not just for fighting, but everything you need to manufacture for the war.

Plus think about the huge economic damage due to the severing of all trade ties with the US. Sure we'd take a MASSIVE hit. But so would everyone else, especially those countries who's entire economy is built on the US (ehem Japan).

United States is still Japan's major trading partner, but China is catching up. According to Chinese government, they already are, because they are counting Taiwan in as part of their country...... a-h*les. Point you were making about the economic damage to Japan is correct. I just wanted to point out that Japan's entire economy didn't depend on the U.S. Probably more like 1/3 to 1/4.

It wouldn't be a stalemate if the world objective were to take over the US, and the US objective was not to be taken over - we'd win.... and no we wouldn't get worn down over time.

It would take a long time, but if the world tried to take over the U.S., I think it can. United States have crazy amount of resources, but not enough to fend off the world, and after decade or two, it will simply run out of draftees.

 

[ledhed]

isn't that the actual topic of the thread?... I mean, we're all talking on one side how the US would lose and on the other side how the US would win... What ledhed says is that the US would support a war declaration on the rest of the world... is that what you say is true? Or that the US would win?

I'll sit on the fence on the first question this time, but I say again, the US would lose.



Shame on you, Famine. It does not rain on US Stealth bombers...
(/sarcasm)

You do realise that ledhed doesnt say the US would support a war on the world dont you ? I started off by saying its just not what this democracy is about and I couldnt imagine it . Zardoz tried to get me to play along by comming up with a scenario that might work if you suspend your thinking proccess long enough ...I decided to play along and my conclusion is ..the world would would die a horrible death . Each country would lose its power to fight an offensive war against the US . Its not patriotism or objectivity . Its the reality of modern war and well within the capability of existing US military equipment and established doctrine . The US has equipment that can only be stopped by accident . Its also got enough equipment to do the job and the capability to replace loses at a rapid rate . You are not going to sink carrier groups . You will not have anything to do it with . When your airforce has been destroyed THEN you will see carrier groups . After your power grid has been bombed and your air defense has been nutralized ..then you will see your production facilitys destroyed..maybe three or four countries at a time . There is nothing in the worlds airforces that can stop the US air force except nukes on the air bases . That will slow things up a bit . But then once the first nuke get launched ..well its lights out for all but the roaches .
You really need to go to a few web sites to put things in perspective..the US air force dwarfs the nearest competitor in size and power and NOTHING comes close to mathching its strategic forces . Even if you could get all the air forces to be able to communicate and work toghether..you may be better off fighting aliens . Your doomed .

 

[ledhed]

So you're saying that the US couldn't occupy the world, but it could defend itself?

Then it would be stalemate, and the war's end would be determined by attrition. It sounds like the mentalty of the USA would be to hide behind a modern "Maginot Line" of air defense...

Why would the US want to occupy the world ? You dont get it ..all we have to do is remove other countries ability to make war on us . Then they can buy stuff from us after we bomb them into the stone age to rebuild . Its a no lose proosition ..except for the millions of dead people .

 

[Grand Prix]

Perhaps the USA can learn from Germany's mistakes and improve on the theory of wars being won with technology. If the war started today perhaps the USA has a good chance at winning.

That is why we must weaken the USA economically first.

We must bring America's corporations to India for telecommunication, and China for manufacturing. We must take jobs away from Americans, bring down their average income. Indirectly decrease their markets value. Bring down the amount of tax money the USA government can use to fund the millitary. Force them to lay off carrier crews and sell some carriers themselves to European nations and China.

Then the power will be balanced, and America will never be blamed for another action.

If the USA could bring down the economy of the USSR, we can at least work together to bring down the economy of the USA. Or die trying.

 

[crimson_menace]

Lo!

The US could plant a nuke in all opposing countries, or multiples of nukes. And the world would go boom, with the final blow landed by the US.

And the final Score:

US-1

World-0

 

[Grand Prix]

Lo!

The US could plant a nuke in all opposing countries, or multiples of nukes. And the world would go boom, with the final blow landed by the US.

And the final Score:

US-1

World-0

But would the US ICBM nukes reach their targets before the world launches their own? Most likely not. The result would be the end of the human race.

 

[Solid Fro]

The only winning move is not to play.